Brendan Ryan (Labour)

Seans nár thuig siad mé.

I asked yesterday for a debate on Aer Lingus and specifically on the business case that has been made. I still have not heard the business case. The Taoiseach announced in the Dáil yesterday the best advice. The Leader knows more about these things than I do. Has she met an international consultancy yet which ever recommended anything other than an IPO for a State commercial agency? Has a consultancy ever recommended that a body should remain in public ownership? The bottom line is that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. In the case of the London underground, for instance, it was concluded that a private body would be 40% more efficient than public ownership. I do not know where they got the figure from. My own view is the reason there is always enthusiasm for privatising State commercial agencies is because the first decision taken after privatisation is that the salaries of the senior executives are doubled, trebled or quadrupled and therefore there is a significant incentive for senior executives always to want their agency privatised.

I wish to hear the business case for privatisation, based on the national strategic needs and Aer Lingus's capital needs. The case has not been heard and it is extraordinary that we are walking down this road without a proper coherent and defensible business case.

On an unrelated matter, five years ago a report on palliative care was delivered to Government and accepted. The full implementation of the proposals would cost approximately €150 million a year. There is currently a deficit of approximately €100 million. It is a mystery to me why something which is so humanly necessary and also so politically valuable to Government, has been left undone. There is hardly anything in the health area which impacts on more families than the care of the dying. However, a report which was supposed to be fully implemented by now is singularly unimplemented for the sake of €100 million. One of the reasons is that money is being given to the HSE and to the sub-groups to do this but they are not allowed to recruit extra staff because of an embargo on staffing. This is not joined-up thinking. If funding is to be provided for a project, the staff must be employed to provide the service. This makes no sense and it demonstrates that the problems with the health service are not just to do with money, even though that is important, but are to do with the absolute ineptitude of the present Government in particular to deliver. Why would the Government not provide a good palliative care service? The money and resources and the plan are in place; it is simply awaiting implementation. The absence of a proper palliative care service would be a very valuable issue to debate. It is acknowledged by everyone as being a necessary and vital service.

The nation's heart was broken by the letters in the newspapers from a man describing the conditions under which his wife died. It should not have happened. This is now a rich country. The money is there but there is something wrong in the lack of a political will to deliver. It is time to dispose of whatever issue was in the way. This service could be fully implemented within 12 months if the will was there. The House should ask the Tánaiste to explain the reason it is not being implemented.